Springfield city councilors alarmed that more than 100 employees take home city vehicles

SPRINGFIELD – City councilors resurrected a thorny issue on Tuesday – questioning if there is justification for more than 100 municipal supervisors and employees to have take-home vehicles.

The discussion occurred during a Finance Committee meeting at City Hall, as the council braces for a budget proposal from Mayor Domenic J. Sarno that could include major layoffs and cuts in services.

At Tuesday’s meeting, some department officials told councilors that the policy for take-home cars and trucks is intended for quicker responses to emergencies, greater efficiency, reduced vandalism of city vehicles, and overall cost savings.

Some councilors, however, said they are unconvinced. They will seek additional details from the departments that might justify the number of vehicles brought home and detail the extent of after-hour emergencies.

City Councilor John A. Lysak said he is betting the justification will not be there.

“Maybe if 10 guys in their department have take-home cars, maybe one or two of them get called in a handful of times a year,” Lysak said. “It’s a waste of money even if it’s a few gallons (of gasoline) a week going back and forth. That’s money coming out of taxpayers’ wallets.”

“It should be cut down,” Concepcion said. “It’s becoming a country club.”

There was criticism three years ago when the city counted 113 take-home cars. Numbers provided in recent days by city departments now sets an estimate of 107 vehicls.

Councilor Kenneth E. Shea said he wants to see an analysis of the criteria for taking home cars, and a cost analysis.

Patrick J. Sullivan, the city’s director of parks, buildings and recreation management, said that 29 of his managers and employees were allowed to take their vehicles home, but the number was reduced by four on May 21. On that date, any employee living outside Springfield had to stop taking the vehicle home, expected to save nearly $12,000 a year, Sullivan said, adding that the union has filed an objection.

However, Sullivan defended the practice of take-home cars, saying his foremen respond to emergencies from home, such as building alarms, or might be checking on a nighttime recreational program. The department would spend more on overtime and waste valuable time, if the employees first went to a city lot to get cars, and then respond to emergencies, he said.

Sullivan said his department has maintained a policy that only critical employees who respond to the public for emergencies will take a vehicle home. The department, however, oversees 3,000 acres of open space and 5 million square feet of building space, including schools, and thus has many people on call, divided into districts, he said.

Mario Mazza, a Department of Public Works supervisor, said employees are on call to respond to emergencies that could range from a road washout to a blocked catch basin.

A few people have been caught abusing the policy for take-home cars and are no longer working for the city, Mazza said. Taking away a vehicle from someone on call, takes away part of their compensation, and means the city might not get the best people for those jobs, he said.

Lysak said he objected to the idea that employees would be losing compensation. He said many are paid overtime, at a minimum of four hours.

“Well, you know what, they are paid better than a lot of other people right now in this current economy, who would love to have a vehicle, love to have free insurance, love to have free gas,” Lysak said.

Richard J. Allen, chairman of the Board of Assessors, said that three office employees who inspect properties have take-home cars, allowing them to go straight to their first inspection from home, and then straight home after their last inspection, rather than driving to City Hall first.